SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses 496,800,171 1,235,875,452 Sub-total -ANS-(C) - 1,732,675,623 Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged NA NA NA NA 581,711,166 581,711,166 bogus LTCG

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses 496,800,171 1,235,875,452 Sub-total -ANS-(C) - 1,732,675,623 Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged NA NA NA NA 581,711,166 581,711,166 bogus LTCG

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses 496,800,171 1,235,875,452 Sub-total -ANS-(C) - 1,732,675,623 Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged NA NA NA NA 581,711,166 581,711,166 bogus LTCG

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses 496,800,171 1,235,875,452 Sub-total -ANS-(C) - 1,732,675,623 Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged NA NA NA NA 581,711,166 581,711,166 bogus LTCG

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses 496,800,171 1,235,875,452 Sub-total -ANS-(C) - 1,732,675,623 Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged NA NA NA NA 581,711,166 581,711,166 bogus LTCG

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses 496,800,171 1,235,875,452 Sub-total -ANS-(C) - 1,732,675,623 Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged NA NA NA NA 581,711,166 581,711,166 bogus LTCG

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses 496,800,171 1,235,875,452 Sub-total -ANS-(C) - 1,732,675,623 Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged NA NA NA NA 581,711,166 581,711,166 bogus LTCG

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses 496,800,171 1,235,875,452 Sub-total -ANS-(C) - 1,732,675,623 Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged NA NA NA NA 581,711,166 581,711,166 bogus LTCG

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

73,668,055 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses 496,800,171 1,235,875,452 Sub-total -ANS-(C) - 1,732,675,623 Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total Total Sale proceeds u/s 68 (on a/c of alleged NA NA NA NA 581,711,166 581,711,166 bogus LTCG

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 69 of IT Act. 30. While making addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/-, the Assessing officer had duly ignored the assessee's plea that land was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee had not filed any evidence. However the learned CIT(A) had treated it as if assessee

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 69 of IT Act. 30. While making addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/-, the Assessing officer had duly ignored the assessee's plea that land was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee had not filed any evidence. However the learned CIT(A) had treated it as if assessee

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 69 of IT Act. 30. While making addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/-, the Assessing officer had duly ignored the assessee's plea that land was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee had not filed any evidence. However the learned CIT(A) had treated it as if assessee

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment of interest and also considering the history of the case that similar deduction has been allowed in the preceding six years for which the assessment has been made after search. Therefore, the finding of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana that the assessment has been made

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment of interest and also considering the history of the case that similar deduction has been allowed in the preceding six years for which the assessment has been made after search. Therefore, the finding of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana that the assessment has been made

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment of interest and also considering the history of the case that similar deduction has been allowed in the preceding six years for which the assessment has been made after search. Therefore, the finding of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana that the assessment has been made

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court